Signals & Noise: July 4, 1996

I agree with James Burke (EDN, May 9, 1996, pg 11) that life is changing and people are not prepared; yet, none of this should surprise us. As a Christian, I find the current trends consistent with themes in the Bible. The scariest prophecies are the increase in knowledge (which says nothing of wisdom) in the final times and the emergence of a global economy for which the new technology is requisite. Technology, for which we are not yet ready, is fulfilling these prophecies (again, wisdom is not increasing). As for the statement that getting technology into the schools will decrease the number of poor people, I don't believe that. New tools have traditionally changed the nature of the poor's labor but have done nothing to decrease the number of poor people. If history is a good indicator, the poor will just become more highly trained, as happened for every other technological advance. (For example, there are many poor mechanics today with incredible knowledge of sophisticated machines.) I agree with Burke's claim to being a technology optimist, but the optimists are just as useless as the pessimists. (I know of few realists.) I would love to hear the same assessment by historians looking at the big picture over a span of more than a century.

Christopher Reggiardo
creggi@ventritex.com

Innovation and the Internet must be free

I agree with James Burke's comments (EDN, May, 9, 1996, pg 11) for the most part. The best way to accelerate the impact of technology and to optimize Moore's law is to reduce government involvement. Don't have government pick winners and losers: Let the vast amount of users determine who produces products and delivers education. It is time to treat the world as a synergistic system (and stop talking about the United States vs Japan vs Germany vs... ). In this world, everyone benefits when improved technology and production methods are developed. I want maximized personal freedom (politics at the lowest level), which is what the Internet can provide.

Gus Calabrese
via the Internet

The V-chip debate

My worry is that a V-chip system would degrade the quality of available programming, period. Steven H Leibson gives the motion-picture agency's rating system for movies as an example of a V-chip predecessor (EDN, April 25, 1996, pg 13). Motion-picture producers strive for an R rating, because this rating is the most popular. Movie executives and some consumers regard a movie with a G, PG, or PG-13 rating as kid's stuff, unworthy of being seen by an adult audience. A certain amount of sex or violence has become obligatory to avoid a rating that would label the show as being targeted to a younger audience.

The movie industry, which produces only a fraction of the shows that the TV industry does, has been less than completely consistent in ratings. And, the TV industry is going to lean on the ratings when questioned about the content and quality of its programming. The industry will claim that the viewing public wants more sex and violence, because those programs are popular. The industry will say that the audience has the V chip for protection, and the industry will no longer be responsible for the content of its programs.

Dave Hansen
via the Internet